Relations between Malaysia and Singapore have for long been characterised not by a co-operative understanding but reflect the beggar-thy-neighbour attitudes on both sides.

Malaysia, it seems, delights in being able to mete out regular threats over the continuity of Singapores water supply, which it controls, while irking the island nations leaders with its refusal to give up the strip of railway land cutting through prime Singapore real estate.

When deciding unilaterally on projects such as the now-forgotten Johor waterfront city or the more recent plan to elevate only the Malaysian half of the Causeway, Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad was reportedly quick to dismiss disagreeing voices from across the Straits, saying, It doesnt involve them and we dont have to ask them for permission.

On the other hand, Singapore has not been behind in antagonising its neighbour either. No attempts have been made to resolve outstanding disagreement over the payout of pension savings of Malaysians formerly working in Singapore.

Other hits by Singapore have been more damaging. During the 1997 Asian financial crisis, Singapore had, in the name of market forces, offered high interest rates on the ringgit, thereby worsening the capital flight severely affecting the Malaysian economy.

However, the latest disagreement over the land reclamation project on Singapores Pulau Tekong stands slightly apart from the regular spats as it is likely to have deeper implications on the economics of the region and international law in the making.

Port Tanjung Pelepas success

At the official level, Singapores rhetoric has been centred upon its right to do as it wishes within its own territory.

However, it is an undeniable fact that the persistence with which Singapore has pursued the project is also directly related to the successes of Johors Port of Tanjung Pelepas (PTP).

As a country whose economy is built on its strategic location at the heart of international air traffic and shipping lanes, any attempts to challenge Singapores dominance in these two fields are met with certain hostility.

Despite the sanguine attitude of the Port of Singapore Authority Corp (PSA) in saying that the move of Taiwanese shipping company Evergreen to PTP is not expected to have a significant impact on PSAs financial performance, simple statistics say otherwise.

Evergreens agreement with PTP, signed April 1, followed hot on the heels of Danish shipping giant Maersk Sealands departure in December 2000. The two companies were respectively the first and third largest clients at PSA.

Maersks shift was believed to have cost PSA about 10 percent of its volume while Evergreens move would chip off another seven percent.

Therefore, it is not inconceivable that the reclamation project may be a measured move to increase risk and costs of doing business with Johor ports.

Indeed, if true, successful reclamation would reaffirm Singapores locational advantage and ensure that in the long-term, it continues to control access to one end of the Straits of Malacca and thereby all shipping activity passing through the region.

International law argument

In view of the fact that parliamentarians in Singapore are quick to make references to international law in reply to Malaysian leaders objections, it is also necessary to examine further if there is any basis to these claims.

Although taking place within its own territorial sea, at least two aspects of this project rest on margins of doubt as to whether there are provisions in international law specifically defining it as legal and permissible in the context of the case.

Firstly, international law provides for a state to exploit the continental shelf adjacent to its coast. However, it is arguable if the same principle applies to a situation whereby the state shares a boundary with another state along a narrow waterway.

Singapore, by extending its land territory to the sea boundary (by reclaiming eastward of Pulau Tekong), is putting into suspension the maritime law stating that the boundary between the two states facing the same waterway would be the median line measured from the two coasts.

The question, therefore, arises if the maritime boundary between the two countries could at a later date creep north at the expense of Malaysian territorial sea, a valid concern since sea boundaries in maritime Southeast Asia are anything but clearly defined.

Secondly, Article 16 of the 1958 Geneva Convention on the Territorial Sea further states that there shall be no suspension of innocent passage of foreign ships through straits which are used for international navigation between one part of the high seas and another part or the territorial sea of a foreign state.

It could be argued that by drastically narrowing the straits in the Tekong context, Singapore is consciously affecting passage of ships as is evident from its suggestion for ships passing through the waterway to employ the services of Singapore tug boats and pilots.

Good faith

Finally there is always the concept of good faith which should supercede all applications of international law provisions.

Whether good faith had been practised in all other dealings between the two states is subject to interpretation but in this case, it clearly behooves on Singapore to consult its neighbour before embarking on a project which is likely to have drastic implications on the others well-being.

In the matter of recourse, Malaysia faces limited options short of bringing the case to the International Court of Justice. Even if it faces violation of its rights, such irreversible projects may at a later date only garner monetary compensation  a situation well understood by Singapore.

In the grey areas within international law where silence had more than been interpreted as signifying assent, the Malaysian government is likely to continue protesting, and loudly too.

In any eventuality, it is unlikely that there will be an end in sight to the tit-for-tat policies.